it equally fundamental innovations produced even greater success for him and for his shareholders. comparableas no large-scale middle-class job creation. that is what we are going to have to work through. to require us to be much more imaginative thinking about various kinds of service work and thinking about the quality of jobs and the dignity of jobs associated with the service sector. i am all for doing everything we can. there is a lot we can do that is still undone to bring about a renaissance of american manufacturing. but china has gained competitiveness, share, innovated and raised its

efficiency as much as any country ever well. inre are fewer workers chinese manufacturing today than there were 20 years ago. so, success if and when it comes is going to come from various kinds of service work, areas kinds of greater customization. it is a tragedy that on one hand areare saying -- and you right, i understand why you are saying it -- that there may not be enough work to do. there areer hand, several million kids in this who profoundly need individual attention and mentoring of a kind they are not close to getting. we do not have a way of bringing

the people who want to work together with those. i do not think it is traditional government that will do it. i also do not think it will be turning the country into some kind of libertarian paradise. >> with that, thank you, larry summers. >> we will be coming back to the ceo council in a moment with congressman paul ryan. personal tweets from members of congress on the iran deal announced last night. kevin mccarthy says i caution the president not to oversell the deal with iran. says it is corker time for congress to hold the obama administration's feet to the fire on iran. tennessee representative steve cohen says-- steve

it will be good for israel, peace, and america. senator chuck schumer released a statement talking about his disappointment with the deal. then a statement from eric cantor. this morning on cnn, secretary of state john kerry looked ahead at what is next in negotiations with iran. i do not think it is problem until we solve the nuclear problem.

the only down the road is over the course of the next six months while we work to solve the nuclear program. solved, hopefully establish a basis for proceeding forward on other things. but right now, we have made it very clear the international community requires a resolution of the united nations resolutions that have been passed. the questions the international atomic agency has, all of these things need to be answered. we are trying to set up a process by which we can verify, know what we are doing, restrain the program while we negotiate the comprehensive deal. , we will take a look at the united states nuclear weapons arsenal and policies live at noon eastern on c-span. back to the wall street journal ceo conference with the chairman

of the house ceo committee, paul ryan. >> ladies and gentlemen, the chairman of the house committee of the budget, paul ryan. [applause] editor ofitorial page the "wall street journal." >> >> welcome. thank you for being here. we know you have been a friend of the ceo council. it is great to have the year. -- it is great to have you here. i want to bounce off of you the start of a couple of things the president said. you spoke in strong terms of the problems we have had with

government by crisis. yet he expressed optimism about this budget round, avoiding repetition of what happened with that unpleasantness. can you tell us now that there will not be a another shutdown or another debt limit? >> how we avoid the shutdown, whether we can have an agreement, or we have a continuing resolution, either one of those scenarios will prevail. we will not have a government shutdown. the debt limit is later on. we do not know the timing of that. jack lew was able to delete -- do what we call more measures that could be late spring. you will haveve

the kind of theatrics surrounding that as well. >> why do you think it will be within youris time own conference? the speaker didn't want the crisis that happened the last time. correct me if i am wrong. i do not think that you did. yet you could not control your own members. how can you prevent that from happening again? >> that is correct. now.care is here the reason it happened, from our perspective, is now people understand why we fight obamacare so much. we were doing all of these oversight hearings seeing this program was not ready for prime time and the damage that would come to the people we represent. we wanted to do everything we could to stop it. many didn't think it was the way to stop it. it is clear that the shutdown does not stop obamacare. the government did shut down. it did not stop obama care.

i do not think that will be repeated. that is in the past. it is clear that that will not stop obamacare. the thing that we feared what -- what happened are now happening. not get in the way of the government shutdown. we will keep funding at current levels if need be and not have a shutdown. >> that will not fire up your members even more to say now we have an even greater -- knowing -- incentive? >> they are not related. >> you are negotiated with senate democrats. their position is, all you need to do to get a deal, to get them to move on entitlements, is eliminate tax expenditures that tax subsidies they call raised the carried interest

up to the normal income tax rate. if that is what you need to do to get entitlement reform, why not put together that deal? >> that is not what they are saying. they're not saying they're willing to do entitlement reform. not are signaling they are interested in entitlement reform. >> you give us the tax expenditure reductions, we will give you something on entitlements? >> i don't see that. let me back up to what i was going to say. if this becomes about raising taxes, we are not going to get anywhere. the president already got a big tax cut in january. $600 billion. that number is higher now. we are very serious about tax reform. ways and means is moving tax reform.

max baucus is working on tax reform legislation. that is were taxes should be dealt with. we do not want to short change tax reform. if we take tax loopholes and put them in this budget process, we are shortchanging tax reform. our goal is to get our rates down. our goal is to get to a 25% rate in international competitive system. we do not want to short change that. the loopholes are needed to bring those down to grow the economy and get people back to work. on the spending side, we are willing to trade spending cuts that are across the board. we're willing to trade those for smarter spending cuts. that is a trait we are willing to look at and are discussing now. >> you're willing to ease the sequester limits. >> if we can get entitlement reform. we are having conversations. we do not have an agreement.

we have differences of opinions. you mentioned one of them. we're going to try to work out differences. the bottom line, what we ought to do is something that is good for the deficit. are we reducing the deficit or not. that is point number one. i more than happy to cut spending in a smarter way to replace these across-the-board cuts. do any a way that produces more deficit reduction. that would be a step in the right direction. it wish of the government can work in function even divided. it can do that, and they'll be a good sign of confidence. it is nice to show that the parties can function on a basic level. we are not going to raise taxes because we think it is bad for the economy. it takes pressure off the kind of fiscal discipline we finally have, getting spending under control breed it is only under control in discretionary. we would like to bring reforms over there if we want ease

discretionary problems. >> if you cannot get that deal you described, would you be able to accept an extension of the sequester? >> that is what we will do. >> you would consider that? >> we will take the cuts we have got and the fiscal discipline we have. there is a smarter way of doing it. we cannot do it that way, we will stick with a we have. >> let me ask you about what larry summers said, the government doesn't do two things well at the same time. spur growth, reduce deficits. right now, given our figures, government does not spur growth. >> >> growth does reduce the deficit. we have tried that playbook for five years. look at the anemic growth we

have. the spending stimulus is not working. deficits, morer tax increases. it puts more pressure on interest rates in the future at the expense of progrowth policies like lowering taxes and regulatory reform, certainteed. all of this temporary stimulus answered the uncertainty facing businesses, robs about tax -- props up tax rates, raise their deficits, which adds to more uncertainty and the higher taxes. real progrowth policies, lower our tax rates. that would be growth. look at this incredible energy boom we could have in this country if we get behind it. energy production is going up on private land. what if we could respond with the same thing on federal land? and regulatory certainty, which stops this boom from happening. these things are growth. those things produced faster

growth, and a lower deficit. >> you're not prepared then to declare victory in the short term on the deficit. that has to be a priority? >> yes. we do not see these as trade- offs. faster economic growth, more jobs, progrowth policies, not borrowing and spending. let businesses breathe. lowering tax rates on the margin. that produces more growth and reduces the deficit. i do not buy the premise of the question, which is it is either deficit reduction or economic growth. >> another agenda item, immigration reform. we get conflicting reports from republicans. we hear the speaker say no votes this year. somebody else says there might be a vote this year. we want to get this done before the election. maybe not until after the primary.

where do you stand on immigration reform? is it something that we can see getting done this year? >> i am for immigration reform. i am for the house form of immigration reform. we will not take the senate will -- bill. i think this is all progrowth. i can going to whole thing about -- go into the whole thing about birth rates and labor markets. the point is, we are denying our country from having a lot of intellectual capital to help us create jobs. i think if we do immigration reform right, that is progrowth policy. i'm advocating moving forward on immigration reform in a step-by- step way. we will do in a process that guarantees the will not melt the -- not come out with the result of the senate bill. that is what the speaker was talking about.

the way the house is going to work and proceed is a step-by- step approach, getting the border secured. we just not trust the word on this. it has to be actual and verifiable on border enforcement before other things can be triggered. we want to move from a chain migration. a family-based system to an economic-based immigration system. and, we want to make sure that we have a system that does not grant amnesty, or create a moral hazard. that helps respect the rule of law while dealing with people who are not documented. we think there is a way to do this. it is in the senate bill. it is not amnesty. it transforms our system from a family-based system to an economic-based system. i want to do it this calendar year. knowing that calendar and being involved in budget negotiations

which will take up early december, there is not enough time to do it. >> you do not think there will any votes this calendar year? the longer you wait, the harder it is to get it done. >> i agree. i wanted to get it done this year. it is not because we do not want to do it. we are literally losing our time because we have budget negotiations. we have a farm bill. we do not have space in our calendar to do it. we are serious that the house will proceed with immigration reform. we will do in the way i just described, that guarantees that we do not, with a senate proposal. >> is a majority in the house fora pathway to citizenship the 11 million people currently undocumented?

>> i would say no. the way you describe that is if we are giving somebody a jump in the line. as if we are giving an automated person adocumented pathway ahead of someone who is here legally. here is what i would describe. what we have been envisioning is a person goes on probation. like probation, there is assimilation. pay taxes. pay a fine. english, civics. you can't be on welfare for a decade. have to have a job. after the border is verified, after that time in five years, then you can get out of probation on that keep having a work permit. if you want to get in line to get a green card like any other immigrant, you can get in that line.

you are at the back of the line. we want to preference the person who came here legally and did things right from the get-go. we do not want to person came hereve the person who came illegally a jump online. that is not a path to citizenship. >> half of your conference would call what you have described amnesty. >> i do not believe it is amnesty. it is such a laborious process, it respects the rule of law. the reason they want to map in this way is we do not want to create moral hazard where we tell people just wait, and we will wipe the slate clean in a decade. we want to make sure we are not in the same place 10 years from now. we want to have the enforcement guaranteed that works along with a change in legal system from

chain to economics, a system for the undocumented to get right with the law in a way that does not reward them from having broken the law. we believe that is the way to do it. it respects the rule of law. the reason why we want to map it out this way is because we don't want to create a moral hazard where we say wait and congress will what the slate clean a decade. it is about a 15 year time line before you become a citizen under what i described. i hardly call that amnesty. >> you watched the virginia governor's race. ken cuccinelli lost election but he won by so many points. can republicans continue -- can they regain the presidency

without doing better among minority voters? and how does the republican party do that? >> forget about the electoral college. forget about demographics and what republicans should do. what is the right thing for public policy? what is the right thing for a public person to do in office? that is to fight for ideas that work for everybody. so where i believe we have a lot of room for improvement as a party is to show that we have better answers for fighting poverty. 46 million people in poverty, highest rates in a generation -- you know, we have known each other a long time. we have better ideas for fighting poverty and for revitalizing our inner cities. we have to be constructive on immigration reform. that works, is good for the

economy, respects the rule of law, is inclusive. immigration is a good thing for this country. it is what this country has been built upon. i think we need to speak to all of these issues because it is good for some lyrical cac the american idea. it is how we get back to a program of, equal opportunity upward mobile society which america has always been. it hasn't been in these stagnant times, but we have to show that we have solutions to speak to that and to every single person, no matter who they are or where they come from or the color of their skin or their gender. that is the right thing to do. if we do that, then hopefully those medical benefits will -- political benefits will accrue. >> you were a national candidate last time. you have that experience. there is a lot of discussion among republicans. you hear it all the time. the next republican nominee for president in 2016 has to be a

governor, somebody like a chris christie or john walker or john -- john walker or -- scott walker or john kasich. do you agree with that? >> no. [laughter] >> why not? you have this mess in washington. the approval rating for congress is 12%. the republican electorate looks at that and says i don't want to redo that, change deck chairs with somebody else in the other party. let's get somebody else who has a reputation for governing and put them in the chair. >> the resume isn't as important to me as a person, their quality of ideas and their record a of reform. i want to make sure that we get a person who will be a standardbearer who can go the distance. i am familiar with what going the distance means. it means a lot. it is not easy to do.

but also somebody who will be a good standardbearer, who will be strong on principles come inclusive on ideas, and gives , what i call full-spectrum conservatism that speaks to each and everybody. because i believe this country has just a handful of years before we go down the european path, before we become the social welfare state. and we have to turn this growth engine back on. the good news is that it doesn't take a lot to turn things around and get this country growing again. i don't think we will have that with this administration. we just won't. i don't think the president has the philosophy or the disposition or the temperament to do that. i'm hoping that we can do a few things to make this divided government work. but to fundamentally fix what is needing fixing is doable. it will take somebody who knows how to do it and could do it. they could be a governor or somebody from the federal side. who are there were they doing

and where their gifts? that is what is important to me rather than what is on the resume. >> you were in iowa recently. no doubt investigating the ethanol program. and you did say that you would look closely at making a run yourself. what is your mental checklist? what are you looking at when you make that decision? >> i was keeping a commitment to a friend in iowa who had an -- who is the governor of iowa who asked me to do almost a year ago. it's next-door, wisconsin, nearby. no. the way i look at this is this. if i am going to do a job in the majority, as the leader of my party, trying to fix these current problems, i cannot let my mind be clouded with personal ambition. because, if i do come i cannot

-- if i do, i do not think i can make the decisions to govern in the majority. right now, i have a job to do on behalf of the people who elected me and the responsibilities given by my caucus. i will focus on that. after that is done, i will take a look at those things, do the kind of soul-searching it takes and make the decision. the question is that i have to if i have presidential sized ambitions. >> to win the white house and get the nomination, you have to really want it. and people say we don't know if you wanted. >> i have a young family. i have been a policy guiding -- guy in congress. i have focused on my family and the policy in congress. where i have been in my career, you can do that and be a good family man. that has been very important to me. jan and i had a long talk about

going on the ticket and whether we could balance that. we believe we could and we did. >> it was a sure campaign. -- short campaign. >> it was an 88-day race. the commitment i made in the beginning was that i have important work to do. i need to focus on that work and i don't want to cloud my thinking based upon what does this do to juxtapose me with this person or that person in new hampshire or iowa. i don't want to think like that. it will clog my judgment right now. i want to focus on doing my job right now. >> do you have a timeline? >> no. >> let's get a few questions from the audience. there must be a few for congressman ryan. anybody? none at all? he has you totally convinced? yes, please. right here. get the microphone.

>> governor christie spoke directly last night about the need to reach across the aisle. if he could get 70% of his agenda passed in some compromise, that would be moving his case forward by 70%. listening to your comments on immigration, it wasn't clear that there was a mindset that, on a bill or an issue that most people in this room see as quite critical for the future that there is a spirit of willingness 70% of these to get democratic agenda and 70% of the republican agenda that would give both sides something that they could live with. >> we talk to democrats. we are -- there's a certain bottom line that is important for us. just to pass a bill. most importantly, maintainer

our principles. so, yes, do we need to address skills? absolutely. do we need to get the enforcement, interior enforcement, border enforcement? absolutely. do we believe that we have to have a viable answer for the undocumented and do it in such a way that could text the rule of -- protects the rule of law and does not reward a person for cutting in line? yeah, and i think there are democrats who agree with us on that. those basic and suppose, i believe, the president and his party would be crazy to walk away from. i think there is a way to do this. but, again, it goes both ways. we are not just going to get jammed with a senate bill. we have made it very clear that we will not take that bill and we won't take a process where it leads to that bill. we will do a process likely i just described, which by the way i think the country prefers that we do these things step-by-

step so they and we know what we are voting on. i mean, look at obamacare. you bring these multi-thousand page bills to the floor and no one knows what's in them and then look what happens. we don't want to do that with any issue, let alone immigration reform. >> and why not try to do what you can do? why not do a dream act bill, for example? but try to get them done, even if you cannot get the grant enforcement provisions and everything else, just do those. if you did some of those coming besome of those, it would tremendous for the economy and the country. >> the democrats will not just go with us if we do that. in working with democrats, they won't support our stem bill if we don't bring other bills along with it. so we want a step-by-step approach which brings these bills that are coming out of judiciary committee -- they are still working on bills there -- and do it in a time when we can deliver this. if we are trying to cram an rush because it is a calendar year,

we don't think that is responsible. we really don't have time to do that. the other part of it is that there are big problems that need fixing across the immigration system. we want to show had these pieces integrate and work together so that we are doing it in a way that is smart. and we want to do it in a way to make sure we won't get jammed with a senate bill. so the process matters as well. >> next question. yes, please, in the back. you can get a microphone. >> hello. when the debate -- when we shut down the government and the debate around the debt ceiling happened, it sent the shivers down the spine of every business around the world and many consumers. now we have resolved it but only to shift it. come

january and the next deadline, what do we have to expect? >> that is why i was not a big fan of the way it was done because it was a can kicking exercise. this is what sends shivers down my spine. is that we go into next year when the federal reserve begins to normalize our policy and perhaps interest rates begin rising and we will not have taken advantage of this low- interest rate moment to get a down payment on our debt. we know from the cbo that our debt is about to take off in a few years and never come back down if we don't do anything about it. we have 100% increase on the retirement population and only 17% increase in the worker population paying for their programs. the cost of the programs that they use are growing eight % a year. that is a whole lot faster than the economy, wages or inflation. so this is our concern. what we get from the resident is just give me more debt without doing any thing to deal with why the debt is rising so fast. we want to get a down payment on

our debt problems because, if we do it now, we can do it on our own terms as a nation. if we wait until we have a crisis, then we are in panic mode, cutting the safety net, reneging on promises to seniors after they have already retired, at higher interest rates and in crisis. we want to get ahead of our problems and we think that is good for growth. if we get some debt reduction under control now, that will bring more security to the markets and interest rates, when they normalize they will do it at normal rates than otherwise. the only kind of leverage we ever get with this kind of a divided government that does not want to reduce the debt, that does not want to reform the drivers of our debt, the government programs, that is why we want to have serious conversations about what it will take to get a down payment on this problem. i put an op-ed a month ago

saying that there are all of these entitlement reforms at the president put in his budget. we will take those as a down payment. means testing. that makes sense. we are for that. the problem is we do not have a receptive audience from the other side of the aisle to do even the small and minimal things. so we have to look at where leverage is to get the down payment on the debt. we think that is in our nation's interest. if we lose three years not getting our debt under control, that is three years where we are digging a hole even deeper in and the solution will be even uglier when we get around to fixing the problem. that's why. >> one more right here. >> could you envision your party, the republican party, coming forward with an alternative to affordable care

act that incorporates many of the provisions, the popular provisions or the provisions that people think work that could be a viable solution to some of the problems that seem to be in the law this year? >> well -- [laughter] many of us are working on alternatives, but it is literally if option of running -- a function of running numbers and getting them whipped into shape. i don't think this year -- that is just a logistical point. the republican study committee has a bill for a complete obamacare replacement that has been released that has 100 cosponsors already. tom coburn and i in 2009-2010 had complete patient reforms we offered when obamacare was being deliberated.

so before, during and after obamacare, we put out very comprehensive patient-centered market-based plans and i do envision us doing so again. to your other question, i believe that we can come up with a system that has guaranteed access for affordable health insurance for all americans regardless of whether a person has pre-existing conditions are or not without this costly government takeover, without this big brother database, without government running health care, without government mandating what you can and cannot do. the problem that the president has is that he jammed this through a one-party rule. there are plenty of republicans, my self included, work working with bipartisan solutions and they had none of that. so can we have a system where people with pre-existing conditions have protections? yes. can we have a system where you have equalized tax benefits, people who can get affordable?

access? yes. can you do it without this government takeover, without having to be forced to buy health insurance that the government makes you have? yes. i do not know if we will get it with this president. but we can access affordable care without inflation. we will offer some more in the near future. >> thank you very much for joining us. >> thanks, paul. [applause] bring a book events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at hearings, white house events, readings, and conferences, offering complete coverage of the u.s. house. all is a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable-tv industry 34 years ago

and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd. yesterday, president obama announced a deal has been leached -- reached with iran on the nuclear program. he spoke from the white house dining room. >> good evening. states withnited our close allies and partners took an important first step towards a comprehensive solution that addresses our concerns with the islamic republic of iran's nuclear program. i have made clear my determination to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. as i have said many times, my strong preference is to resolve this issue peacefully. we have extended the hand of diplomacy. has beenyears, iran

unwilling to meet its obligations to the international community. administration worked with congress, the united nations security council, and countries around the world to impose unprecedented sanctions on the iranian government. these sanctions have had a substantial impact on the iranian economy. with the election of a new president earlier this year, an opening for diplomacy emerged. i spoke personally with the president this fall. secretary kerry has met multiple times with the foreign minister. we have pursued intensive diplomacy with the iranians and our partners. today that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure, a future in which we can verify iran's nuclear program is peaceful and it cannot build a nuclear weapon.

while today's announcement is just a first step, it achieves a great deal. for the first time in nearly a decade, we have halted the progress of the iranian nuclear program. key parts of the program will be rolled back. iran has committed to halting certain levels of enrichment and neutralizing parts of its stockpile. iran cannot used its next generation centrifuges used for enriching uranium. you cannot start up or install new centrifuges. iran will halt work at its plutonium reactor. new inspections will provide extensive access to nuclear facilities and allow the international community to verify whether iran is keeping its commitments. these are substantial limitations which will help prevent iran from building a nuclear weapon. simply put, they cut off iran's most likely path to a bomb.

timefirst step will create and space over the next six months for more negotiations to fully address our comprehensive concerns about the iranian program. iranse of disagreement, cannot use negotiations as cover to advance its program. the united states and our friends and allies have agreed to provide iran with modest relief while continuing to apply our toughest sanctions. we will refrain from imposing new sanctions and allow the iranian government access to a portion of the revenue they have been denied through sanctions. the broader architecture of sanctions will remain in place. we will continue to enforce them vigorously. itsran does not fully meet commitments during the six months, we will turn off the relief and ratchet up the pressure. next six months, we will work to negotiate a comprehensive solution.

we approach these negotiations with a basic understanding. , like any nation, should be able to access peaceful nuclear energy. record of its violating obligations, iran must accept strict limitations on its nuclear program to make it impossible to develop a nuclear weapon. nothing negotiations, will be agreed to unless everything is agreed to. the burden is on iran to prove to the world its nuclear program will be exclusively for peaceful purposes. opportunity,s this the iranian people will benefit from joining the international community. to chip away at the distrust between our nations. this would provide iran a dignified path to a new beginning with the world based on nuclear respect -- mutual respect. if iran refuses, it will face growing isolation.

partner has been a key in imposing sanctions on the iranian government. that bipartisan effort made possible the progress achieved today. going forward, we will continue to work closely with congress. now is not the time to move forward on new sanctions because doing so would derail the promising first step, alienate us from our allies, and risked unraveling the coalition that allowed. sanctions to be enforced in the first place that international unity is on display today. in supports united of the determination to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon. iran must know security and prosperity will never come through the pursuit of nuclear weapons. it must be reached through verifiable agreements that make their pursuit of nuclear weapons impossible. the resolve of the united states will remain firm as will our commitments to our friends and

allies, particularly israel and our golf partners who have reason to be skeptical about iran's intentions. about alomacy can bring durable solution to the challenge posed by iran's nuclear program. as president and commander in chief, i will do what is necessary to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. i have a profound responsibility to try to resolve our differences peacefully rather than rush to conflict. today we have an opportunity to achieve a comprehensive, peaceful settlement. i believe we must test it. the first step we have taken today marks the most significant and tangible progress we have made with iran since i took office. we must use the months ahead to pursue a lasting and conference of settlement would resolve an issue that has threatened our security for decades. it will not be easy. huge challenges remain ahead. through strong and principled diplomacy, the united states of

america will do our part on greaterf the world of peace, and cooperation among nations. thank you very much. members of congress are tweeting about the iran deal. the kansas congressman says the negotiated deal with iran is a travesty and makes america less safe. house majority leader eric cantor says even "the new york times" agrees the deal does not roll back the majority of the advances iran has made. tomorrow, a look at the united states arsenal and policies. we will be live at noon eastern on c-span.

will besident obama speaking from san francisco about immigration policy also on c-span. walkerin governor scott talked to reporters recently about a variety of topics during the breakfast in washington. he has a new book out called "unintimidated." he spoke for about one hour. >> ok, here we go. thanks for coming. i am dave cook. welcome to one of our gatherings. our guest is scott walker. governor of wisconsin. this is his second visit with us.

his last was in june of he was 2012. born in colorado, lived for a while in iowa, and then moved to wisconsin when he was 10, and he attended marquette university, left before graduating to do marketing for the american red cross. his first elective experience was in a wisconsin state assembly where he served from 1993 until 2002, at which point he was elected as milwaukee county executive. he was noted as returning part of his paycheck to the county. he was elected governor in 2010. in june 2012 he became the first u.s. governor to keep his seat in a recall lection. the battle was triggered by his efforts to restrict collective bargaining rights for public workers. he has written about that experience in his new book -- if they paid me more, i would've held it up for you. [laughter] copies are at your seat.

thus ended the biographical portion of the program. now on to the details. as always we are on the record , here. please, no live blogging or tweeting or other means of filing while the breakfast is underway. there is no embargo when a session ends, except that our friends at c-span, and get a seat right here. "time" magazine. there is no embargo since c-span has agreed not to air video until one hour after we end. that will give reporters in the room time to file. if you would like to ask a question, do the traditional thing and send me a nonthreatening signal, and i will do my best to call on one and all. the governor has a 10:15 appointment. he will not be able to linger for the popular bloody mary portion of the program at 10:00. we will start by offering our guests the opportunity to make

brief opening questions -- remarks and we will move to questions around the table. ask again for coming. >> thanks. thanks for having me matt. i believe most of the time to the questions, but the simplest way to begin with is people asked why did you write a book, and it was civil. -- simple. people in my state and around the country asked to learn more. they knew about the protests. they read about it, they sawed it in pictures, on tv, and most people i knew asked about it asked about the recall, but the other recalls for the state senators. people said what happened? what was the full story? we write about this in the book. the what, how, but most importantly the why. people do not know why we did what we did and why those reforms are working even better today, and that is the focal point of this book. as i point out before, if people are looking for typical political book where you learn about my life, growing up, where

you learn how became a an equal -- where i became an eagle scout, you will not learn in that book. you have to go to my biography. this is a book about wisconsin and the only thing that strays from my tenure as governor and reforms that we did was a little bit where i talk about my prior experience as a county executive for eight years largely because that puts in context where reforms came from. they did not come from some other group, some group of supporters, but they came vividly as you can read in an entire chapter from my experience as a county executive, and frustration because years ago long before i was governor, when democrats were in charge of everything in our state, they reduced aid to local governments. the difference was they did not give people like me any tools to deal with that. local officials were faced with tough choices.

we try to make reasonable choices to avoid layoffs at the time, and unfortunately in the county plus case, the public employee union leaders essentially said no. and so that was one of the most difficult things i went through and it was something that certainly a key part of why i wanted to make sure that if any changes like that were made when i was governor that they were done in a way that gave local governments, schools, counties, municipalities, the tools they needed to effectively manage those changes. that is what we did. our reforms would have saved more money that was reduced from eight from the state and local governments. and more importantly, the reforms have worked. yesterday we announced unemployment rate in wisconsin is down to 6.5%. when i was running two years ago -- four years ago, it was 9.2%. when i came into office we had a $3.6 billion budget deficit. we just finished the year shy of a $700 million surplus.

the economy is getting better. we have lowered taxes. this is the third year in a row property taxes have gone down. we have the largest rainy day fund five times bigger than my predecessor's. our bond rating is strong. we have been able to make investments in education, higher education, worker training, and a number of other areas because we made tough decisions over the last two years. and this book not just tells the story, it tells the details of how the people and the experiences, what i and my family went through, what the legislature went through, and many of the stories that up until now were not fully told. that is a little bit of an overview. >> i will go to myself, and others to start. one of the refrains in the book says if we can do it in wisconsin we can do anywhere, even in our national capital. a great slogan. i want you to talk about how

realistic you think it is. at aei you said employee pay is a big part of the budget and budget problem, so making employees contributed more on health care and pensions has had a big impact. at the federal level, big cost drivers are entitlements, medicare, medicaid, social security, and the secret is that americans want more in benefits of all kinds and they're willing to pay for. what kind of a positive solution come from your experience at the state level for these different problems? >> they are different at the local, state, and federal level, but what we did was mad about -- not about austerity. if it was austerity, we just cut across the board. that meant that things that you value would be cut just as much. what we did was initiating

reform, not just about pension and health care contributions. those were part of it, but the biggest reforms in the state or -- were most of our school districts had by their health insurance from just one company. by pulling back on collective bargaining, district could bid out their health insurance. that means many districts saved enacting thatby one change. other changes go beyond just fiscal savings. at the federal level, there are different sorts of issues. in our case, it was more than half of our budget is a tool of corporate aid to local governments. there were things that required reforms in those areas. the same thing holds true at the national level in other states. those are areas where you have reforms do nots necessarily happen to current beneficiaries, but the future ones, we made the changes to

current beneficiaries and ultimately not only pay off balancing the budget, but you make an argument there are schools that governments are better today than they were in the past. >> let me ask you one other -- your co-author said yesterday at aei that you're very moderate in temperament, but immoderate in policy. you have argued in the book that winning the center does not require moving to the center. how do you think you will fare if you decide to make a national run with, for example, positions of right to life positions which are a good deal more stringent than the 2/3 of the public, according to pew, who oppose overturning roe v. wade? you see you having problems when these positions become better known? >> i'm not focusing on the national level.

i am focused on being governor, and i have worked pretty hard to be governor not once, but twice. i'm going to have to do it again next year, and that is for my -- where my focus is. if you look as a parallel, not only the sconces, but other governors across the country, after the election last year, there are 30 states with republican governors, enmity of -- many of them are in places like wisconsin, iowa, and she, ohio, pennsylvania, to mexico, nevada, although states are states that have repetitive governments, that they were battleground states covered by obama. i contend almost 30 of those states have republican governors that are not only republicans, but more conservative than our party's nominee was on a spectrum of issues, fiscal, economic, social. the difference is as governors, we focus on the things that matter most to people, and is -- those are economic and fiscal issues. i am pro-life, but most

republican governors are pro- life. i do not apologize for that, but i've not focus on it, obsessed with it. of late in my state and perhaps throughout the country, democrats have been seem to be obsessed with those issues in large part because voters in our states focus on economic and fiscal issues, the leadership they have seen come from republican governors more than our opponents. >> this is a political version of what was talked about. governors like to contracts -- contrast their abilities with getting done with partisan conflict in washington. the vast majority of governors, chris christie excepted, enjoy one-party rule in their state where their party controls both the legislature and the governor's mansion. i am wondering how that experience is transferable to an environment in washington were not only we have divided government, but in an area where -- era where the differences

between parties are acutely intransitive. if you could talk about that. >> is part of the reason i am not being clip that i nor 2016 but focus on 2014, not just because i'm up for election, but because i think for any republican or anybody who cares about his country, we should not overlooking 2014 because what we learned in wisconsin and in other states in the midwest learned in the 2010 election if you want to get reform done, positive reform done, you need a team to help you do that. in our case of everything switched from democrat control to republican control in 2010, in wisconsin. it is similar to my neighboring states. for me, other governors other leaders, that empowered us to make these reforms that would have been more difficult if those changes had not been intact, so the argument, the point made is that is why we need to focus in the 2014 elections to make the case to help senate candidates win in

enough states that republicans can regain the majority of the senate, and then in the future, make a convincing case to the public that give this party a chance to show what we can do, to show that we have been effective in the states in reforming states in terms of their economy and fiscal it if give -- fiscal issues and us a chance to do it in washington. >> are you saying 2016 is [indiscernible] >> it is always a challenge. you mentioned chris doing it, new mexico, and chris is an example with the pension reform he did. who would have thought where democrats control both chambers you would get significant reform done, but that took republicans in the legislature and the governor working with a handful of democrats, including leaders in the senate and the general assembly. i think it is preferable.

historically, that was what you have talked about, is that somehow republicans -- americans want divided government. they have seen the last few they have seen the last few years that that is not a good thing. that of sufficient checks and balances, what they have got is a lot of gridlock. it is significant make the case, as we did in wisconsin -- we made the case, said the people in our state going into that 2010 election overwhelmingly felt like we had an economic and fiscal crisis. when i ran i ran like i was conducting a job interview. i will ask all candidates, we all spoke about the same thing, about it so much and so consistently, if you asked me had a form what is my mother's maiden name, i would say it is fitch, and every fitch supports this.

a week after the election, we got together in the capitol with all the new members of the legislature in both chambers and i said it is put up or shut up time. her paper put that as a headline, and the reason i said that is voters changed everything in terms of party control in wisconsin, like they did in other midwestern states. if we come back and we are little different than the people who are in power before, if we are little less bad than they were before, and we have every right to be thrown out two years from now. it is put up or shut up time. we need to show we were elected for a purpose, and there's no doubt in wisconsin and other states in her neighborhood that is what we did. >> thanks. governor, your party actually gained seats in the senate and assembly last november. this is not unlike governor

nolls, a republican when he was elected in 1966, and another time in 1974. why have you not considered extending the collective bargaining to police and firefighters, and you ruled out in the last "monitor" breakfast, the right to work. why with a mandate that you got have you not pursue a more aggressive agenda? >> on the history on nolls, in our case we have pushed an aggressive agenda. we did not push it in those categories. that pushed aggressive entitlement reform. if people look at what we have done in the last year in his constant, some of the most

aggressive entitlement reform in the country, unlike almost every state in america. if you are in able-bodied adult in our state, you cannot get food stamps unless you are working or unless you're enrolled and one of my employment training programs. every other state as a waiver from the federal government for that requirement, not because we want to make it easier for people to get work, but harder to get government assistance, so we're doing it. give them that with education reform, and i talked is about, we have made improvements to improve public schools like my sons went to, and we expanded school choice. we broadened the opportunities for charter schools, for home schools. we have taken on aggressive reform. there is a chapter out saying i did that, too, pointing out that when you look at other

republican governors, they talk about things that we have done, we talk about that and a list of everything from voter id to a whole series of other initiatives that we have done, and most people know us because of the 100,000 protesters in our state on that particular issue. there are plenty of other reforms we have done that are working to improve our state of wisconsin. as we started at the university a flex option, the first public school, public institution in the country to do books online for free and to offer a flex option where people can use traditional in class credit, laboratory credit, online credit as well as tests for competency to get a college student, particularly in high-need areas. they're pretty aggressive reforms that we're done, and it is just not the ones you mentioned so far. >> [indiscernible] 2016 -- and i believe you are good friends, paul ryan and yourself. out of the three who do you think would make the best president present and why? >> i said when i was asked on

one of the sunday shows who i thought the ideal candidate was, not from wisconsin general, and i said, one ideal candidate would be a current or former governor, because governors have executive experience, but there is a sense across america that people want an outsider. i think paul ryan is one of the exceptions to that rule. for everyone who has worked with him, republican and democrats alike, it is hard not to be impressed with his tenacity toward reform, is looking at issues beyond a traditional punishment possibility, but with a harder, executive since. i advocated him to be on the ticket last time because he has those skills and characteristics. but for me in general, i have said a governor makes a lot of sense. other than this president, the last one we voted in as member of congress was john f. kennedy,

a member of congress, and it was 40 years before that when it occurred. it is rare that we elect a member of congress. there is reason for it, but as i mentioned before, it is interesting to speculate, my interest is on 2014, not just because my election, but because it does not matter as much in 2016 if there is not a likelihood that that new president will have a party in charge in both chambers that can help him or her get the job done. >> governor, thanks. so why were republican governors in nearby states, john kasich in ohio, rick snyder in michigan, why were they wrong to take this medicaid expansion money? >> you'll never hear me say that any of them around because every state is different. i will tell you why i did it and why i made the choice. why i did not make the

alternative. every state is different. in our case, we were present of the false choice between yes, you take it, and potentially put your taxpayers at risk about which i was reminded reporters in my state last week yet again why i thought from my point of view that was an easy decision, because why would you take medicaid expansion, so you want me to depend on a federal government who cannot get a website up and going to extend payments for the amount of money that they were going to get, when today, in my most recent budget that i signed and went to effect july 1, had to put over $600 million more of state money into medicaid, which over 40% of that is because the federal government has backed away from previous amendments, without an expansion. that is where my concern is, that i think the federal government is not going to be able to fulfill that commitment. in the law itself, they have backed away from 100% backing, and i think it will slip away in the future. we look at other states that

just said no and missed out the potential opportunities to help their people. in our state, we picked a third option, because of the supreme court decision, i was able to use that where advantage so we transitioned everybody living about poverty in our state, all the childless adults covered under medicaid now, our transitioned into the marketplace which for some will include federal exchanges. everyone living in poverty, for the first time in the state's history, will be covered. we raise the age of eligibility to 200%, but we did not have enough money in it, so was capped, so there are people in the past two years who have been living in poverty on a waiting list for medicaid. i eliminated that list. everyone living in poverty will be covered. everyone living above it will be transitioned into the marketplace. i will have 224,000 fewer people to insure.

i will have a net reduction of people on medicaid. for the first time in our history, everybody below poverty is covered. i will not expose my taxpayers to the potential large cost because of the federal government hacking away from that commitment. >> [indiscernible] >> i can tell you why i did it. every state is different, because of this. i can assure that there were fewer people uninsured, more people having access who were living in poverty, because i think for all the hype out there about expanding medicaid, i do not know why that is a good thing. and my son was born in 1994, there were 10% of the people in my state on medicaid. today it is 25%. nationally, it is higher. having more people dependent on the government, whether for medicaid, food stamps, unemployment compensation, i do not think that is the measure of success in government. i think it better alternative is to say how the people who we

help longer be dependent on government, because having a safety net for people living in poverty is not enough. we have to have assistance to place that helps lift people out of poverty. that is a fundamental difference. >> next is neil munroe. >> governor, from the record, you said our immigration problems could be fixed if we had a test legal entry in the united states. every democrat it candidate who is voted for the senate will has voted for a legal immigration system that will bring a legal immigrant for every teenage entered the country. it brings in a guest worker for everybody between 11 and 21. could you describe that level of embrace? >> what i think as opposed to i do not get caught up in bills and legislation proposed here because it is not what i was elected to do. i was elected to govern a state. it is simple. if you want to come into america today legally, it is very difficult from my point of view

and the people i talk to, very difficult to do so in a timely basis. we've got people, i do not care whether from mexico or ireland were around the world, if we want people to meet here and want to work hard, if that dream, we should embrace as people like people embraced by answer sisters from ireland and germany and my wife is from sicily and my brothers, in-laws from mexico, a generation ago. everyone who followed and legal path, and we should be funny way to make that easier to do in the united states and more timely, because the biggest problem is not just access, it is the time it takes to come into this country. >> [indiscernible] >> i would open the door to make sure that people can legally come into this country and i want -- people want to live the american dream are the kind of people this country was based on. we are a nation of immigration, but also a nation of laws, and

that is where the frustration comes with. so often in this city people look at the symptoms, not the larger problem. the symptom is the issue with whatever the number of magic is of people currently in the country without legal status. the larger problem is there is not an effective way to front and at the front door to make it possible with people who legitimately, legally, corporately want to come into america to live the dream, and that make sense to make that easier. >> governor, what is your position on same-sex marriage, and has your view on that issue or others involving gay men and lesbians changed as it has for a lot of americans in office? and one follow-up on this issue, is this an issue on which the republicans should pick to take a stand? should republicans take the

stand for traditional marriage? >> in 2006, i voted for it at a time to define marriage as legally between one man and woman, and there has not been debate about that mistake. there is some in other states, in other places, but in our state, in the 2010 election when i ran, i asked a question about that, my answer was simple. for it to change it would take two consecutive sessions of the legislature and involve the people. we have had nondiscrimination laws in place that work well and effectively on other issues. i do not see a reason to change either of those two. >> so your view -- and what about the issue about the republican party? >> much of this talk and discussion the last presidential election i think on this, and a few other issues was because there was a larger void on fiscal and economic issues. if you do not have a plan that

is articulated to the people, about what you're going to do to improve people's economy, you need to articulate a plan about what you're going to do to balance the budget, take care the debt, do what is morally responsible to our children and grandchildren, and others issues like this right to a higher level of importance. that void has not been filled. as a result in our state and i did not spend my focus on it because that is not what people elected me to talk about or focus on. >> thank you for being here. [indiscernible] the conventional wisdom used to be that divided government created a space for liberation, but now has created gridlock. yesterday democrats weakened the filibuster. i'm curious about your thinking in wisconsin, what you think of the filibuster debate in

washington. >> i remember and a lot of conservatives remember that were frustrated during the bush presidency times when more was not done. it is always interesting when there are debates like this that videos of opposing party members, from the past and make for interesting discussions out there. i think in general that executives, be it a governor, be it a county executive, or a president, if he or she wants to put people into run portions of their administration among my belief is efforts should begin as long as people are competent and ethical and difference should be given to the chief executive in terms of the appointments they make to executive positions. where i understand why there is

a larger concern about judicial appointments is those are much more lasting and they are concerned with is present or president bush, depending on party, and so i think it does bear a larger level of scrutiny because at the federal bench you're talking about lifetime appointments. those have an impact far beyond an election cycle or term. it does make sense to have a higher standard and do not know that up as frustrating as it is to people in either spectrum when they have candidates in office. that is the difference in terms of difference. >> governor, thanks for joining us. wisconsin was one of the states that has the voter id laws. [indiscernible] >> i do not know -- i will give you a list of stores of the past. i do not have a number. if there is a handful of cases at a substantial because of my vote or anyone else's is jeopardized by the lack of integrity of the process, i can guarantee one vote counts for one person, that is a legitimate

issue. >> i asked because in a number of places and on the federal level, efforts to find people who are voting front only have been very few -- >> when this came up there was talk about few, if any, over time. you have seen the district attorney in milwaukee, a democrat, prosecutors, along with state prosecutors, others. you're not talking about tens of thousands. you had a significant enough number that it was not done by hawkins, but was done by democrats. to me in our state the law i signed into we effect provides case they issued id card in addition to the driver's license free upon request. there's no deterrent to people who some claim would not have otherwise access to photo identification. >> democrats have made the

argument that voter id laws were signed that were designed to make harder for certain groups to vote -- elderly, minorities especially, who do not have driver's licenses. >> i think that is an insulting argument to those groups of people that you mentioned. that somehow they any more than anybody else out there would not have access to the things that are essential to survive in today's society. >> robert. >> governor -- [indiscernible] >> the first thing you got to do is fix the front door. i do not have a perfect plan. i am elected to be governor. if i was running for something else, i would lay out a plan. i do not know what the magic number is because i hear that number, but people who are here legally, how do we know how many there are or not? it could be far fewer or more.

i do not know what the magic number is. to me, i know the plans being discussed right now in washington are far and significant problem we have about legal immigration network in this country. >> governor, it is common for people in your position running for office to talk about political polarization as a bad thing and the need for everyone to get along and lower the temperature, but the experience in wisconsin has been record voter turnout, banished apathy about state government. i wonder, having gone to this experience, is polarization a good thing or a bad thing? >> i think getting people focused -- i mean, for a second,

your premise, but the important point you said is accurate. one, what we did, what i would argue we did, went to talk about in the book, as we pushed aggressive reforms by dramatically taking on the status quo. and i hear time and time again from voters before i was elected, across the spectrum, just republicans or conservatives, who say i am sick and tired of politicians who said one thing when elected and then do another when they get into office. to set aside the issue, and i would assume if you talk to other voters out there, and when you talk to voters across my state, and i would imagine across america, voters say they want people who will not make these promises, will make all

promises, and will make people who will stand up and have the courage to fall through on those. did not wilt under political pressure, did do what ultimately they said they were going to do and make those commitments. so to me, i think the polarization came in large part because not because of what we did but as much as the reaction, when the national units came in. i saw a story in a book about a teacher in central wisconsin, and to the midst of this i would go to schools in my state and read to kids and then go meet for an hour or so in the teachers lounge with teachers, and she said today, second and third question, why do you hate teachers so much? i said, with all due respect, ma'am, if you know to youtube tonight and type in my name, there's probably even a video clip of me buying a hamburger in a state this week. everything i do is on you to. and one is always -- there's money out there that gets whatever i am doing or saying. you would be hard-pressed to find any videotape of me where you can find me saying anything but praise for teachers and

other public service, and in our state great i said you do not have to agree with me, but know full well the people who are making you feel like you're under attack are not people like me and are not even lawmakers. it is your union leadership, because they need to mobilize you. that is where i think -- it is what in the end, the oddity of oddities, one of the most surprising things people find in this book is at the time of my recall election, one of the exit polls showed that one out of every six voters in my state who were voting for me were also intending to vote for barack obama. my numbers consistent last year have shown that more than one out of every 10 voters in the state shows up on the list for me in support and also for barack obama. politically, that makes no sense whatsoever.

ideologically, right, except that our bases, are both of our parties, partisan opposition, of the opposing party, but the people in the middle, for those folks that are the persuadable, undecidable, whatever-you-want- to-call-them voters, ironically, if a significant number of them supported me and the president, they felt they were for something. it may not be consistent ideologically, but it was something where they said but their opponents did not fill the void, they made the election about i'm not scott walker, i hate scott walker, in some ways the republican nominee was the same. in the case of the center, what they wanted was candidates that ran their way on issues, he wanted people who wanted to lead. >> thanks for being here, governor.

so you and other governors who have conservative views of lawmakers in washington, like bobby jindal, who say that governors should be branding the party more than republicans here. you're making an argument earlier that you need or whoever is the next president needs the chance to have the party to make it stamp on washington. what is your advice to republicans in congress republicans running for congress, what should they be doing in washington to improve the brand in order to take over the senate? >> not only what they are doing now, but going out as they are running next are for the senate, in particular, they need to be focused on what i still think are the two key issues nationally like they were in my state when i first ran, and we

still have a in large part an economic or outright crisis, some very serious economic concerns in our country. not for the coming as a whole, but there too many people, and some are recovering in people, but too many who are not coming through on that recovery. one of the things i mentioned about reagan's acceptance speech that many people forget about. it was aspirational. if you are living in despair, we want to give you hope, but not necessarily hope based on the government. we want them to have our recovery and we do not want to leave anyone behind. that has got to be the message that republicans need to do more to embrace across the board, but

in these senate elections, and it means we cannot be to that extent viewed as the party of no, which in the state where we are successful, that is exactly what has happened. they're optimistic, speaking in terms of relevance, showing that we can act in terms of conviction. the national level, obamacare, other things, if we go to the people and say we sense that republicans running for office go to voters in their districts and their states and across this country and say, here is there a big plan, here is our alternative, market-driven alternative that will improve your life, make your life better, this is our alternative to obamacare, they go to the public and say, here is what we think we need to do to stability, lower the tax burden, whatever it might be, those are very impelling issues out there, and i think that feeling in america is that at least i hear from people talking about washington is not just focused on republicans, but everybody here, is they think people in washington just fight for the sake of fighting. i think voters did not mind fighters as long as they think people are writing for them, fighting for the hard-working taxpayers. >> you know that anybody in the senate in the republican side has put forward that would be a dramatic what you're talking about? >> you hear bits and pieces of it. i would like to see a more aggressive -- and it does not

have to be done today, but going into next year, a more aggressive focus on a market- driven alternative to obamacare, because a lot of americans, they're frustrated not just with the website, but with the program itself, and they are hungry to find out what an alternative would be. my state -- the kaiser family foundation did this overview, it was in "the washington post" last saturday, talked about the coverage gap. interestingly, it mentions in that report what the single coverage gap in other states who did not take medicaid expansion, i'm the only state who does not have that gap, and why, because we have a competitive market for health care in a state, and that is the overwhelming charge, people over 90% of our folks are covered, and with limited numbers who do not, and as i mentioned we have an aggressive program helping people living a party. our bigger challenge in wisconsin was not access, but the cost to small business owners, to new startups, small businesses, to a company that starts out with 5, 10, 15

employees who get eaten alive, if they do not have a big enough number of employees to handle the risk pool that is required to get affordable health care options, as an employer for your employees. obamacare in our state does not do anything for us. if you're buying off the single market, individual market, it makes it more difficult cost wise. those are the things that need to be talked about. >> next, sean. >> governor, why specifically is right to work a bad idea for the state? you have essentially right to work for the public. why not private as well? >> it is not. i supported it in the legislature. i have said in the past that there was so much attention, so much focus last time that what i heard from my employers, the biggest thing in the state was

things needed to cool down in the state, things need to get focused in the state, and while they appreciated it, from a larger context, they said, we need things to get back on track. people like what happened, but the resin a certain amount of employers who were frozen during the protests, during the recalls, first wave for second wave, they wanted stability of knowing what was coming next. beyond that, a very small percentage in our state of private sector union-based employers to begin with, and so as you mentioned, the vast majority of people who would be affected by right work in the state anyway are already covered because in our state the 300000 servants have the right to choose. it has been successful for them. >> it seems like twice you have injected that the last

presidential election there were problems, there was a lack of focus on the fiscal and economic prisons. there's often a focus on social issues. is that in your view a distraction from -- that carries over into the general election, from keeping the party focused on selling its message on fiscal and economic issues, that comes up in the primaries? >> is a byproduct of the system in the past, and one of the best things that i think right previously is changing that process, not solely directed at the issues you mentioned, but just in general. the thought the rnc has been talking about moving the convention up to june, shrinking the number of debates about having a more focused attention on the primary caucus process. i handed number of other people

who were solicited for ideas last year, those will were things we highlighted that were be useful. you have 23 debates about it is unmanageable. and what happens is and you know this, following this, not so much exclusive on social issues, but any issue, because the candidates running then, as i imagine would be for any candidates in the future, very similar on economic and fiscal issues. what happens with that many debates is you find very narrow issues that define minute differences. social issues should not be pushed out, because they have some of that handful of issues where there is a minute difference. it makes sense to have the bread and butter of what the party is about at the forefront and it

does not mean you can ever ask question is about other issues, but that process russian is one that should, of all the things the rnc has been talking about doing, is one of the most significant features. >> governor, a social issues question. and you were saying it is not a major element that people think it is the voters on the question of same-sex marriage, do you include abortion as one of those issues that maybe is not as relevant or high profile as it seems to be in the debate? i have a few other follow-ups on that. do you think that some of the most conservative lawmakers need to be moderating their views on those issues in order to win national elections or statewide elections? >> no. i talked about that in the book as well. >> what do you think about the fact that a third or so of abortion clinics in texas are now closed at least until

january? >> i cannot comment on that because that is not what i am familiar with. but the larger issue on social issues, no, i am not say moderate your positions, because again, i talk at the end of the book about how i think persuadable, moderate, middle- of-the-road, whatever-you-want- to-call voters in that categories are the ones in suing states that decide elections. what i found in my state and in that i reference, people voted for both me and barack obama are obviously not people who do not necessarily perfectly align. what they want more than anything is somebody who have bold ideas that are aggressively putting those out. in the state, on principle, fundamental issues, to come out and say to win elections, i need

to change my -- you will lose votes. they want to respect. i do not think everybody wants a perfect, identical rebel. -- replica. they want to know that they respect first and foremost that elected official. he or she has a course of principles they wanted to stick with. secondly, to my larger point, they want to know even if they differ, i happen to people what no problem voting for me even though they do not share my belief on that particular issue because that effect that the things i focus in on even on the fiscal issues in my state and that is what they feel they hired me to do. i use example outside of politics. if i were hiring somebody to be

the chief executive of a company i had and i said he or she was exceptional chief executive of a smaller company, here are the two things i want him to focus on. development and sales. it would not bother me if -- it would but i would get over it if they were a vikings or a bears fan and i could get over it. as long as they got -- they do not focus on that. >> voters who are different on things like gay marriage and abortion do not really need to worry that you are going to do anything to change laws because your marketers in -- >> much of the debate and the question asked earlier sometimes of these issues are interest --

different jurisdictions. an example i got asked about same-sex marriage for example, i said it i is in the constitution. i was not hiding a secret agenda. if i were in a different state, it might be. >> yes, sir? >> you have passed a couple of laws. are you concerned if you do not want to talk about it they will? >> sure, i talk about in my book. is meant a month and a half, very ineffectively -- he spent a month and a half, very ineffectively. my answer was simple.

you think that voters just care about water to issues. i found the man and the women in my state what they wanted to know what i continue to move forward with reforms and get the budget balanced at lower our debts and move our economy and improve our schools and higher education. that is what i talked about in my recall election. >> medicaid expansion. can you talk a little bit? how it is moving and your response? >> last week i called a special session. politically, it would've been great for me to say, i told you so. instead i said, i'm not going to let the people my stator depending on the program to fall through the cracks just go the

failures of the federal government. this is not a new concept. the latest buzz has been how to respond to this. we said back in february when i introduced my budget what we were doing and why, essentially it was the law. i am not going to ignore it. but we said, all the way to june the exchanges were not in place. our transition was postponed equivalent with that delay. what we found in the last few months, i had 877 people that were signed up. what we found was after weeks and weeks of telling my office that things were coming together and they were saying the same things to reporters, and is obsolete not going to work. -- it is obviously not going to work. we are not going to let people fall through the cracks. i called a special session.

we are going to do the medicaid transition and reinstate a very successful program we had before. it is a high risk insurance pool for people can pay at higher premium and get access to health insurance in our state. we send will extend that for three more months to keep them on board and we asked secretary lew and sebelius to give us a change which they are reluctant. in many of our counties, we actually have were qualified health plans outside of the exchange that we do in the exchange.

we asked them to consider if somebody qualifies that they authorize a use the subsidy that they purchased the plan under the exchange. the idea that would free up some of the volume that would have to go to the exchange and make it easier. it is the law. we have said since day one, the difference is we assume that if there was a delay, it would be an intentional delay where the administration and the congress would say, it is not ready yet you would need to push back. we are not there legally. it's just practically not working. >> i wanted to ask a question about something you talked

about, negotiations with iran. that agreement. you said in 2014, looking ahead, foreign policy -- [indiscernible] what is your larger critique of the obama administration? >> on the wider part i will answer as an american. a couple of months ago, i was in tokyo for a trade mission. i made it easier to fly out to the west coast. i stopped to kill time with george shultz. it was interesting in general to spend an hour and a half before we took off. at the time, it was when the debate about syria. i asked him about that. he told when interesting story. maybe you know secretary schultz was in marine in world war ii.

he talked about how before he went into war he went to boot camp. at how his sergeant told him and gave from his firearm and said, this is your firearm, it'll be your best friend and you will live with and sleep with it. the most important thing i can tell you is do not point it at it when you are not prepared to shoot. initially, he did not think about it, is an old world war ii veteran telling war stories. really very profound insight on foreign policy today here and around the globe. what i mean is, one of the biggest frustrations i have had as an american with what is going on in foreign policy is much like obama care and other issues, a president who spend too much time listening to his political team and not policy team.

and pushing things that may not have full set reality in terms of policy implications but politically might sound nice. i think that is dangerous territory whether republican or democrat. i am not even going to advocate whether we should or should not have drawn the red line. you have to set the standard about if you say something, you have to mean something to your allies and it has to mean something to your adversaries. one of the reference in the book i mentioned something early on, before we put our budgets reforms, i invited my cabinet to the executive resident in madison. i sat down and i knew it would not be that tough but tough. i talked about how reagan, the present he took on -- presence he took on. it did something much smaller

scale. i pointed out in my humble opinion, that when he took on air traffic controllers that had a much more profound effect than issues. that sent a powerful message around the world that this was a serious president. a president that was not going to say something and do something differently. a president that was serious. it was part of the end of the cold war back to the element of early on. if you look back at history, reagan had very few military engagements. in large part because his adversaries knew this guy was not to be messed with because he was going to do what he was going to do. >> we have a few minutes left. >> at the state level, there are

certain things the president can do. if the next president is a republican, what should they do to protect and strengthen the institution of traditional marriage and reduce the number of abortions in the country? >> two things. without being insulting, to make my point about how media seems to be more obsessed with social issues than the average voter. that aside, in terms of the president, i do not know. i have not spent a lot time focusing, the things we try to do in our state in terms of marriage in general is look at ways you can help lift people out of poverty. make it easier to get to work and help with early development especially with reading. those are the sorts of things

would've hoped to strengthen families and it makes for strong marriages. the same thing with looking at terms and reducing the number of abortions or other things. the whole spectrum from safe havens to prenatal assistance to making it easier for adoption. at the national and federal level, and that is something i really don't know. >> unfortunately, we are out of time. we hope you'll come back, sir. thank you very much. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> you can see governor walker's remarks again tonight at 6:30 eastern time, followed by kentucky senator rand paul from the citadel military academy in south carolina. his remarks will be at 7:30 eastern. to haveught it was fun a little view of history, of a time in america that was not instructional. it was a bit more anecdotal and actually a little bit more archaeological, meaning random. of weird photos and then the captions explain them area i had a vision of high school students flipping through them and loving history.

from the world of cable to that of honor with "the big picture." tonight on c-span's q and a. think anyone would think that a college campus would be streaming netflix onto an iphone to watch a movie. i think this is what is happening out there, we have this huge issue that the i remember in northwest ohio, depending on the channels.t two some days you do not get any because it depends on the wind and the light and everything else. the industry has changed so rapidly. i want to make sure we have

a law on thesem books are for from innovation. about 3.8 million jobs on the cell phone site -- >> monday on the communicators at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span two. next, testimony from secretary of state john kerry on the u.s. ratification of the united nations disability treaty to establish minimum international standards for supporting people with disabilities. he testified for about an hour and 15 minutes.

>> good morning. this hearing will come to order.

let the first start by thanking secretary kerry for being with us today for this second hearing on the ratification of the crpd, and i think, first, you have the thanks of us for the incredible work you have been doing on behalf of our country, and your presence today sends a strong message about the importance of this issue. we appreciate you taking the time to come back to the committee to support the treaty. we convene the second hearing on ratification, having received the support of thousands of people and organizations, all of whom are looking for us to finally take the treaty over the finish line. we have received compelling letters of support and companies like adobe, coca-cola, nascar, and the consumer electronics

association with over 2000 member committees. the u.s. chamber of commerce, and i believe the chamber is resented in the audience today, as is the u.s. business leadership network, which submitted a letter from over 50 companies in support of the treaty, including microsoft, ibm, at&t, merck, jpmorgan, and northrop grumman, to mention a few. i want to recognize former president and ceo of the financial services roundtable steve bartlett, who is here. when he was in the house, he was a leader in the effort to pass the ada, and we appreciate his presence. we received individual letters from 84 nonprofit disability and religious organizations like the red cross, easter seals, and special olympics. not to mention sign-on letters representing over 1000 friends

groups. we have heard from individuals, some not so well-known, and some very well-known citizens, like colin powell, a chinese human right activist, loretta clairborne, and dr. jordan, the president emeritus of gallaudet university, who wrote, "nothing is more american than recognizing equal opportunity for all citizens." so i think at the end of the day, dr. jordan's simple statement is in substance why we must ratify the treaty. we have several petitions that have been organized by different groups with a total of over 67,000 signatures. and let us not forget what this treaty means to veterans. we have received letters of support from organizations, including the american legion, representing 2. 4 million

americans, and the veterans of foreign wars, with 1.5 million members, and i would like to recognize the national commander of the american legion dan dillinger, who is here with us today. americans, and the veterans of foreign wars, with 1.5 million members, and i would like to recognize the national commander of the american legion dan dillinger, who is here with us today. everyone who supports that treaty is pleased with the realization the american legion passed in august at their national convention, and we thank you, not just for that, but on behalf of a grateful nation to all of you who have served. thank you very much. we are honored to have so many of our wounded warriors of all generations, including from iraqi and afghanistan veterans of america. thank you for taking the time to show your support. you certainly have hours, which is one reason we should ratify this treaty as soon as possible. we salute you and we thank you for your service and your sacrifice. i am told we will receive a letter of support from former secretaries of defense. the support from the u.s. military and veterans community has been overwhelming. and so i move that all of the petitions among letters, and written statements of support we

have received the entered into the record tour for the depth of the support of the treaty that it has from thousands of americans on both sides of the aisle and every walk of life. without objection, so ordered. let me conclude by saying at the end of the day, ratification of the convention of the rights of people with disabilities is simply the right thing to do. i repeat what dr. jordan's simple message, eloquent -- nothing is more american than recognizing equal opportunity for all of our citizens. with that, let me turn to the ranking member of the committee, and i particularly want to thank him for working with me on a process forward to have substantive discussions about what the treaty means, what it can achieve, what are some of the concerns of members, both of the committee and beyond, and it has been an extraordinary effort

to work with you, senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate the tone you have set in your leadership and committee members have set in separating and ensuring that those things we do beyond our shores are done in the most bipartisan way possible. i really appreciate the way the committee has worked together. i want to thank secretary kerry for being here today, and as i mentioned to some of the leading advocates just a minute ago, i think the ratification of this treaty really rests solely on the administration's willingness to ensure that this treaty has no effect on domestic law, no effect. the meetings we have had thus far with the administration officials have been pleasant, but unsatisfying in that as

concerns are raised, the administration so far has not shown a willingness to try to accommodate those. i'm glad the secretary is here. i am really so proud of the people who are here and the efforts they have led over the last several decades to advance ada and so many other significant measures that have had such a positive effect on the disability community. it has been outstanding. i think the hearing we had last year may have been one of the most moving hearings that i have participated in, as we had senator mccain and harkin out front with many others talking about the many strides that have taken place come and i really do think that was one of my high marks here in the senate. at the same time, people have said that ada is the implementing language, that there are no further steps that

there are no further steps that need to be taken domestically. we just had a case, the bond case, and i know there has been dispute over its implications, but it is a case that significantly points out how the supreme court or courts can in fact take into account treaties to affect domestic law. we saw where a woman in pennsylvania actually was being convicted because of a treaty that we had relative to chemical weapons. i know some on the committee have stated that the reason for that was that congress passed implementing language. that was an interesting argument. after this treaty passes, another congress can pass implementing language, and when that occurs it does expand the limits of what we now have at the federal government level relative to federalism and other i will just say to the secretary as he begins to

testify, i would love to see the advancement of rights for the disability -- for the disabled around the world. i would love to see that happen. i would love to see america continue to play a role in advancing those kinds of things. as i just mentioned, it is absolutely incumbent on the administration to agree to very difficult language that ensures in every single case that a treaty like this will not infringe upon federalism and other kinds of issues that are very important, i think, to people on both sides of the dais. i think that this hearing will be more about substance and less about cheerleading, and i hope that the secretary's testimony will reflect that in his answers to the questions. i thank you for being here and appreciate the chairman for having theri